How Baptists Are Recruited. Characteristics of the Sect
Rector of the Temple of the Kazan Icon answers questions from readers Mother of God Sergei Tretyakov.
- Father Sergius, what is the difference Christian faith from the Baptist?
Slightly incorrect question: Baptists are Christians. But there are many different Christians, and their religions differ. The Orthodox Church is very ancient, all the main dogmas of her dogma were formulated long before the advent of Baptism.
So, the Baptists are one of the oldest and most solid Christian sects (do not compare them with any Pentecostals, New Apostles or Evangelists, and even more so with Jehovah's Witnesses). Why a sect? This is the traditional classification: Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists and Reformed are usually called Protestant churches, the rest of the Protestant denominations are called sects.
Baptism originated in England in the first half of the 16th century. The reason was the dispute about the form of the sacrament of Baptism: the Anglicans (among whom the Baptists appeared) baptized by sprinkling water, they inherited this custom from the Catholics. But during the Reformation, interest in the language of the Bible became widespread, and in it the verb "baptize" comes from the Greek "baptiso" - completely immersed in a liquid. Baptists began to baptize by full immersion, and not only baptize, but also rebaptize those who were already baptized by sprinkling.
So what exactly is the difference between Baptism and Orthodoxy? Baptism, like all Protestant sectarianism, is a religion of external piety, all its aspirations are aimed at transforming society in accordance with the social gospel commandments (such as “do not steal”, “honor your father and mother”, “do not envy”, “help your neighbor” and etc.), but there is absolutely no striving for inner transformation, “deification” of a person. The ideal of Baptism is the good citizen who lives by the commandments. And the ideal of Orthodoxy is Holy. For Baptists, it is unthinkable to withdraw from the world into the wilderness, seclusion, silence, striving for poverty and lack of comfort. Such a person for them is an asocial type, a renegade. That is why Baptism has never produced a single Saint in its entire history. And Orthodoxy, meanwhile, is not conceivable without its Saints, it is they who are its pillars and teachers, starting with Christ Himself, and further through the Apostles to Ambrose of Optina, John of Kronstadt and the ascetics of our times.
A saint is the fruit of Orthodox piety, and the fruit of Baptist piety is a respectable burgher. Do not think, I am not against a respectable person - this is wonderful, but Orthodoxy teaches that no integrity is lasting until the soul is cleansed by repentance and crowned with deep humility, and this is not the case in Baptism. Baptists read, but do not understand, the words of Christ that "He came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance", they are the righteous, already saved by Christ, as they themselves claim. But in Orthodoxy - alas: no one can consider himself saved until death, as the greatest among the Holy Ascetics used to say.
The main task for Baptists is evangelization (attracting more and more new members to their community), they multiply their ranks. So, since the understanding of Christianity in Baptism is external, it does not know anything about the deep life of the spirit, Baptists do not even have an interest in such a life, and hence the denial of most of the manifestations of the Spirit of God, such as the Sacraments. For them, Baptism is not a sacrament, but a rite of admission to membership in the community, Communion is simple bread and wine, pastors are leaders from among the members of the community, and not priests appointed by the Grace of God, a temple is not a temple of God, but a house for prayer meetings, like Jewish synagogue, etc. And icons for them are just pictures, even more than that - pagan idols. They consider the Orthodox idolaters and are proud that they fulfill the commandment, but for some reason they do not notice that simultaneously with the commandment, Moses was given the command to build the Temple and decorate it, including images of Angels, in front of whom worship was to be performed (the veil and the Ark Testament). And in general, the theological teaching of the Baptists is very fragmentary: some places (especially those relating to the biblical text) are worked out very scrupulously, they are constantly researched, and somewhere there are solid white fields that escape the attention of researchers, there is no whole worldview. For them, it is as if the entire first millennium after the Nativity of Christ, the era of the Ecumenical Councils, did not exist. A sort of lapse in memory: the era of the Apostles immediately passes into the era of Baptism, and from the sources of the doctrine, only the Bible is left.
The worship of the Baptists is also more of a school than worship itself. If on Orthodox service predominantly pray (moreover, the prayers themselves are the fruit of the spiritual experience of the Psalmist David and the Holy Fathers), then Baptists mostly read the Bible, interpret and study its texts, listen to the pastor’s sermons, sometimes even watch films on a religious theme. Their spiritual singing is mostly self-composed hymns like “Let’s follow Christ as a friendly, joyful family ...”, and their prayers, although sincere, are spontaneous, arbitrary and very superficial ears). In general, the prayers of most Protestants are formal, short, and do not occupy a central place in their spiritual life.
T. Karpizenkova
Why does the WCC ECB collect wallets and fingerprints of parishioners?
What is the difference between the Christian faith and the Baptist faith?: 88 comments
Baptists are a sect of peculiarly lost people, which has nothing to do with the Church of Christ and the salvation of God. They, like all sectarians and heretics, study the Bible in a wrong, false and erroneous way. To turn to them and communicate with them is a sin that causes severe harm to the soul. So it is considered in Orthodoxy. Why? Let's try to answer this question.
The Baptists are a Protestant sect that appeared in 1633 in England. Initially, its representatives were called "brothers", then "baptized Christians" or "Baptists" (Baptisto from Greek means I immerse), sometimes "Catabaptists". The head of the sect, at its inception and initial formation, was John Smith, and in North America, where a significant part of the followers of this sect soon moved, was Roger William. But here and there the heretics soon divided into two, and then into several factions. The process of this division continues to this day, due to the extreme individualism of the sect, which does not tolerate either obligatory symbols and symbolic books, or administrative guardianship. The only symbol recognized by all Baptists is the apostolic symbol.
The main points of their teaching are the recognition of Holy Scripture as the only source of doctrine and the rejection of the baptism of children; instead of baptizing children, their blessing is practiced. Baptism, according to the teachings of the Baptists, is valid only after the awakening of personal faith, and without it it is unthinkable, has no power. Hence baptism, according to their teaching, is only an external sign of the confession of a person already “inwardly converted” to God, and in the action of baptism its divine side is completely removed, the participation of God in the sacrament is eliminated, and the sacrament itself is reduced to the category of simple human actions. The general character of their discipline is Calvinistic.
According to the structure and management, they are divided into separate independent communities, or congregations (hence their other name - congregationalists); moral restraint is placed above teaching. The principle of unconditional freedom of conscience is the basis of all their doctrine and structure. In addition to the sacrament of baptism, they also recognize communion. Although marriage is not recognized as a sacrament, its blessing is considered necessary and, moreover, through presbyters or in general. officials communities. The moral requirements of the members are strict. The model for the community as a whole is the apostolic church. Forms of disciplinary punishment: public exhortation and excommunication from church communion. The mysticism of the sect is expressed in the predominance of feeling over reason in the matter of faith; extreme liberalism prevails in matters of dogma. Baptism is internally homogeneous.
At the heart of his teaching is the teaching of Luther and Calvin about predestination. Baptism differs from pure Lutheranism in its consistent and unconditional implementation of the basic provisions of Lutheranism about the Church, on Holy Scripture and on salvation, as well as hostility towards Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church, and an even greater inclination towards Judaism and anarchy than in Lutheranism.
They lack a clear teaching about the Church. They deny the Church and church hierarchy, making themselves subject to the judgment of God: Mt.18: 17 if he does not listen to them, tell the church; and if he does not listen to the church, then let him be to you, like a pagan and a publican.
So, historians attribute the emergence of Baptism to the beginning of the 17th century. At this time, part of the radical wing of the Puritans, representatives of English Calvinism, came to the conclusion that infant baptism "does not correspond" to the New Testament and therefore it is necessary to be baptized at a conscious age. The head of this community, John Smith, baptized himself (by pouring water on his forehead), and then his supporters. It is curious that Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist community in the United States, also baptized himself (although, according to another version, he was first baptized by a member of the community who was not baptized, obviously, himself, and only then Williams baptized everyone else). These facts can be used to argue with Baptists - is it possible to justify self-baptism with the Bible? In this regard, you can also use the fact that the most popular Baptist preacher of the 20th century, the American Billy Graham, was baptized three times! First he was baptized as a child in the Presbyterian Church, then Baptist as an adult, but then he became a member of the conservative Southern Baptist Convention, and according to the rules of this denomination, even those who were baptized in other Baptist groups are baptized. Ask the Baptists to clarify whether the Bible justifies baptizing the same person three times? Let's say childhood baptism is not valid for Baptists, but Graham was consciously baptized twice in different Baptist groups! At first, Baptism was not very popular, since the Protestant world was dominated by representatives of "liturgical Protestantism" - Lutherans and Calvinists. In fact, Baptism was a radical wing of Calvinism, and on most fundamental issues adhered to strict Calvinist positions. For example, they adhered to the doctrine of double predestination - the dogma that even before the creation of the world, for no reason, God decided to save some people and send others to hell. Baptists appear in our country in late XIX century and are often associated with the activities of foreign missionaries.
The first surge in the popularity of Baptism falls on the years of Soviet power - 1917-1927, which the Baptists themselves call the "golden decade". At that time, the Soviet authorities did their best to destroy Orthodoxy, but Baptism was treated noticeably more liberally, since it was considered to have suffered from the "tsarist regime." However, since the end of the 1920s, persecution of the Baptists also began. The next burst of Baptist activity in our country took place in the late 80s and early 90s. The Protestant missionary expansion of the 1990s increased the number of Baptists in our country by several times.
Controversy with the Baptists
Baptists, like other neo-Protestants (Adventists and Pentecostals), like to emphasize their own religiosity and spirituality, in contrast to the Orthodox, who, in their opinion, for the most part are unbelievers and generally lost sinners. Here it is immediately necessary to make a reservation that a specific situation has developed in our country in the post-Soviet period, when the vast majority of people call themselves Orthodox, but in reality they are not, so it is completely incorrect to judge Orthodoxy by them. Any religion should be judged by the people who actually profess it. Yes, the Orthodox have many sins, and you can’t help but see this, but we don’t propose to judge Baptism by pop singers, alcoholic Britney Spears and drug addict Whitney Houston, or by presidents, adulterer Bill Clinton, who actively lobbied for gay rights, or Harry Truman, who ordered the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which immediately killed about 200,000 people. But all these people were brought up in the Baptist spirit and never (at least publicly) renounced their faith. So let's compare those who are considered a model of piety in one or another confession.
Note that Baptists, like American evangelicals in general, read several chapters of the Bible daily, and usually know at least several hundred verses by heart. Therefore, the Orthodox should not yield to them in this. Here it is worth recognizing that reading the Holy Scriptures in the Orthodox environment, alas, is often not a daily activity - although this is not prohibited by the Church, but, on the contrary, is approved by it. Of course, for the Orthodox, the interpretation of Scripture is mediated by Tradition, and the Baptists believe that they interpret the Bible directly, and in this case there is a reason to talk about the status of Scripture in Orthodoxy and neo-Protestantism. Baptists often say that one Bible is enough for salvation - in that case, ask them how this is justified by the Bible itself? The words of Christ, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God,” which Baptists usually cite as evidence, do not prove anything; it is impossible to unmistakably extract the thesis “Scripture alone” from them.
After all, the Baptists did not take their interpretations directly from the Bible, Jesus did not appear face to face to each of them, and did not dictate which interpretation of Scripture is true. Baptists borrowed their interpretations from the pastor's sermons, certain books of their own tradition, as well as from their own experience and the experience of their fellow believers. If we go to any Baptist bookstore, then most of the books there will not be editions of the Holy Scriptures, but books reflecting the spiritual experience of American evangelicals, or their Russian counterparts (the latter, however, are much less numerous). Consequently, the Baptists also have their own sacred tradition, only it does not cover the experience of the Church over 2000 years, but the experience of radical Protestants of the last 400 years. Thus, the difference between Orthodoxy and Baptism is not the difference between Tradition and Scripture, but the difference between Tradition and Tradition.
As a rule, Baptists agree that they have tradition, but at the same time they say: but the Scriptures are more important than tradition. It all depends on what you mean by tradition. Of course, the Orthodox do not equate the status of the books of Scripture with, for example, the status of the works of the Fathers of the Church. The Bible, as the word of God, is infallible. However, for Orthodox Scripture- this is part of the Tradition, i.e. continuous church experience of communion with God. The Church's communion with God existed even when there were no books of Scripture. But even now, when there are books of Scripture, communion with God exists not only on the pages of the Bible, it is characteristic of the Church everywhere and always. Otherwise, where would the Scripture itself and its true interpretations come from? Baptists often say that the Church is not needed for salvation - just one Scripture is enough, which allegedly gave birth to the Church. But who created Scripture? Obviously members of the Church. Ask Baptists: How do we know to include in the Bible exactly the books that are included in it today? Why do the Orthodox include 77 books and the Baptists 66?
Did Christ or the apostles say something about this? No. We will not see any list of canonical or non-canonical books in the Bible itself. Some books of the Bible are not cited elsewhere in the Bible, or the Name of God is never mentioned (eg Song of Songs). What are the rational criteria for recognizing certain books as biblical? It is clear that there are no such criteria - the criterion here is only in the inspiration of the Church of Christ. Similarly, Baptists can be shown that all their external criteria for the correct interpretation of the Bible are easily destroyed: for example, the principle that the darker passages of the Bible are interpreted with the help of "clearer ones." But who will decide which parts of the Bible are clear and which are not? Different confessions deal with this issue in different ways: for Catholics it is obvious that the Bible speaks of purgatory, for Calvinists it is clear that salvation cannot be lost, and for Pentecostals it is beyond doubt that the Bible "permits" speaking in tongues. After all, neither the prophets, nor Christ, nor the apostles said which fragments of the Bible are "clear" and which are "dark" - it all depends on the subjective choice of one or another Protestant denomination. This means that the true interpretation of the Bible is not ensured by the observance of certain logical rules - the grace poured out by God through the Church is necessary.
Otherwise, you will end up with a “chaos of interpretations” that we observe in Protestant confessions. Ask your interlocutor - where does this chaos of opinion come from, and often on very important issues? This only demonstrates that quotations from the Bible by themselves do not prove anything - in support of many, even completely opposite positions, fragments from the books of Holy Scripture can be cited. And vice versa, the same verse can be interpreted in the exact opposite way, for example, the words of Christ “let the children come to me” for the Orthodox serve as an argument in favor of child baptism, i.e. children are not strangers to the work of grace, and for Baptists it is an argument that children without baptism are not strangers to God, because they have a different view of the meaning of baptism. Of course, the Orthodox should know those quotations from the Bible that are cited in defense of the Orthodox teaching (they can easily be learned from books like the "Anti-Sectarian Catechism" by Priest Nikolai Varzhansky), but it should be remembered that these quotations as such will not be so conclusive for Baptists. At best, they will convince your opponent that you are as familiar with the Bible as he is.
It must be borne in mind that, despite a good knowledge of the biblical text, the vast majority of Baptists have a poor idea of the history of the Church, or even, for example, the history of the Reformation. That is why among Baptists they want such fakes as, for example, the film “Orthodox about Orthodoxy”, which in terms of lies is quite comparable to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, and with its intellectual narrowness is somewhat reminiscent of Soviet atheistic propaganda. In this situation, it is necessary to remind the Baptists that Christ promised that His Church will always exist, its existence in history is uninterrupted (see Matt. 16, 18). However, Baptism appeared only in the 17th century, and many of its doctrines were not known during the first 15 centuries of Christian history - what, contrary to the words of Christ, was the Church wrong in fundamental matters of faith for 1500 years?! Your interlocutor will most likely say that the Church was not mistaken in the dogmas of the Trinity and the God-manhood of Christ, and the rest, they say, is unimportant. But how does it matter when Baptists accuse the Orthodox of idolatry and paganism? If they are "serious" then how can such a Church be believed at all? But it was the Church that approved the New Testament canon, it was she who defended the truth of the Trinity of God and the doctrine of the Incarnation in the fight against heretics. How could the “pagans and idolaters” do this?! The conclusion is that the Church has remained the Body of Christ all this time.
Finally, Baptists profess the dogma of salvation by faith alone, but it was not known to Christians until Martin Luther, i.e. until the 16th century. Luther himself considered it the most important dogma of Christianity. It turns out that the Church of the 15 centuries did not understand at all how a person is saved? So the gates of hell overpowered her? And here you can draw the attention of your interlocutor to the person who first began to talk about salvation by faith. As you know, Martin Luther was far from being a saint - he constantly cursed his opponents in the most obscene terms, offered to destroy Jews and kill German peasants. Can we believe that it was this man who, for the first time in 15 centuries, correctly understood the doctrine of salvation? Another Reformation leader, Calvin (and Baptism grew out of his teachings and still adheres to many doctrines associated specifically with Calvin), persecuted dissidents in Geneva as best he could, not stopping even before the death penalty. Of course, many crimes could also be committed in the name of Orthodoxy. But here we are talking about people who laid the fundamental foundations of Protestant dogma - after all, until now, all Protestants, despite many disagreements, believe in salvation by faith. And if the people who “discovered” this dogma are such, then how can one continue to listen to their opinion, passing it off as evidence of Scripture?
The defense of the Orthodox doctrine of salvation in a dispute with the Baptists can be built as follows:
1. Emphasize that the words of ap. Paul about "justification by faith" (Rom. 3:28) mean that a person is saved independently of "the works of the law", i.e. Old Testament law. The apostle only opposes "earning salvation", relying on works, but nowhere does he state that a person does not participate in his salvation. Ap. James, on the contrary, emphasizes that faith without works is dead.
2. The parable of Christ about the sower insists that although people may believe Christ, they regularly fall away from the faith and do not bear fruit, i.e. salvation depends on man, and he can either accept it or reject it. But even accepting this gift, he then often rejects it, therefore, there can be no question of guaranteed salvation.
3. The words of Christ that the believer is saved are uttered by him either after healing, and therefore do not have the meaning of eternal salvation, or it is implied that the believer is a person who lives by Christ, and not just mentally accepting Him, i.e. salvation depends on works.
4. The Bible (both Old and New Testament) is full of calls to constantly repent, consider yourself a sinner and fulfill the commandments. What would it make sense if salvation were immediately guaranteed without the possibility of losing it?
5. Russian Baptists admit that salvation can still be lost, but ask them - are you sure that you are saved? They will say, “yes, let’s go to heaven right now.” This means that they are sure that, despite their sins, they will still be in paradise, i.e. it is possible to sin, but this does not affect the guaranteed salvation, and does not lead to falling away?
6. Baptists claim that at the very first moment of turning to God, when they accepted Christ as a “personal Savior” (pay attention to this expression - the Church has nothing to do with it, God saves everyone one by one), God forgave them all their sins, and therefore, though they sin, yet their sins are not so to God. The question arises: first, how can all sins be forgiven in advance? Of course, nothing is impossible for God, but the doctrine looks very strange, according to which you are forgiven for sins that you have not yet committed, for which you have not repented! It turns out that God forgives in advance imperfect murders, thefts, adulteries? But then you can safely sin! Of course, the Baptists would not be able to draw such an absurd conclusion, but does this not mean that their original doctrine is wrong? If a student is told even before the start of studies that he is guaranteed a red diploma, and his studies will practically not affect this in any way, will he study with full zeal?
7. If salvation does not depend on man (namely, this is what the doctrine of salvation by faith propagates), then Baptists, like other Protestants, have only one way out - the doctrine of rigid predestination. This means that God does not want to save everyone for reasons that are incomprehensible to us. Can Baptists believe in such a God who is love, but not for everyone, but only for the elect?
It is important for the Orthodox to clarify that the Church has never believed that salvation can be "earned". Orthodoxy has never believed that a person can have "merit" before God. It was the Roman Catholic Church that leaned towards this, but in Orthodoxy, for example, there were no indulgences. Orthodox believe not in merit, but in the fact that a person interacts with God in the process of salvation, freely participates in his salvation. And therefore, you cannot be sure in advance that you will be in paradise - a person can fall away from God at any moment. Yes, salvation is by grace - here Orthodox and Baptists agree, but mercy is always unobtrusive and non-violent, and it does not save if you do not want it. And in order to dispose a person to grace, to exorcise sin, certain “exercises” are necessary, which in themselves do not save, but with the help of God they turn out to be useful (hence fasting in Orthodoxy and other “asceticism”). The Baptist does not need this, because the doctrine of instant salvation believes that sin has already been cast out and will no longer annoy you. The Orthodox, however, remember the words of the Apostle: "If we say that we have no sin, the truth is not in us."
Baptists often raise the issue of the veneration of saints and icons, accusing the Orthodox of paganism and idolatry. In this case, the Orthodox should immediately ask: has the Baptist read at least one Orthodox book calls to worship the tree and pray to the colors? Does he really think the Orthodox are so stupid? Make a reservation that we are arguing about the real position of Orthodoxy, and not about the "opinions of grandmothers." It is also necessary to clarify that the commandment “do not make for yourself an idol” also implies that “no images” can be made, but for some reason Baptists easily violate this clause and depict Christ or biblical events.
What needs to be clarified here is how the Orthodox make a distinction between the veneration that belongs to the icon (image) and the worship that is due only to God (the archetype). Salvation we wait only for God, but He gives it to us through the Church, through His saints and His shrines. He doesn't need this type of salvation—we need Him. In the Bible we see that people are saved through people. Don't Baptists read the Scriptures that have come down to us through His saints—God didn't dictate the Gospel directly to them. In the same way, we see that God saves people through material shrines, such as the ark and the temple, as was the case in Old Testament. Baptists say: “But there are no direct commands to paint icons in the New Testament!” Well no. But after all, there are no direct commands to celebrate Easter and Christmas, and there are no hymns from the Baptist collection to sing either. It's just that all Christians understand: what is acceptable is that which is not prescribed by the letter, but corresponds to the spirit. So the veneration of shrines corresponds to the Christian spirit. A person consists of a soul and a body, therefore it is natural for him to be sanctified through material shrines. Hence the temple, icons, water in baptism, bread and wine in communion, hence the rites - through the material we show the beauty of the Kingdom of Heaven. Where ritualism has been abandoned, the service is simply boring. What is it like New Year without a Christmas tree, sparklers and gifts - in black suits and with gloomy faces.
In the Old Testament, believers knelt before the ark and the temple; today, Christians kneel before icons. When Baptists ask, isn't this idolatry? - ask them, if a young man knelt before a girl, confessing his love to her, is this idolatry? Do American Protestants who kneel and kiss the flag of their country sin with idolatry? Or do they just love their homeland? Why is it possible to kneel before the US flag, but not before the icon of Christ?
As for the prayers to the saints, here we must immediately tell the Baptists that the Orthodox do not believe in some “merits” of the saints, they do not deify them, and do not put them on the same level with Christ. Any prayer to the saints is a prayer to Christ. We ask the saints to pray to our Lord to help us with His grace, and not the saints to help us with some of their own. magical powers. Let's ask the Baptists - do you ask your fellow believers to pray for you, realizing that your prayers alone are not enough, because you are far from being as holy as Christ? In the Church, everyone prays for each other, and everyone asks each other for prayers. The Orthodox simply assert that this prayer connection between members of the Church is not interrupted even when the saints are in heaven - thanks to Christ, thanks to the fact that we are one body in Christ, the saints pray for us in heaven, and can hear our prayers addressed to him on earth, which is confirmed by the whole history of the Church. If Baptists are sure that a mother's prayer for children has great power before God, and they ask their mothers to pray for them, then why do they refuse this to the Mother of Christ Himself? That's really whose prayers are strong before God, stronger than any mother on earth.
It is very important to discuss the sacraments with Baptists. You can limit yourself to baptism and communion. The main disagreement is this: Baptists do not need the sacraments for salvation. This is their delusion. After all, if baptism and communion are not necessary for our salvation, then why should we be baptized and receive communion at all? Christ commanded us to baptize all peoples and to give communion to all, but according to Baptism, one can easily do without this. So Christ commanded nonsense? Baptists say that the main thing is faith. Yes, faith, but faith presupposes that we believe that Christ commanded us to perform baptism and communion for our sanctification and salvation, otherwise it turns out that our faith is absurd. Believe that baptism and the sacrament will not affect your salvation in any way, believe that they are only signs - such is the Baptist creed! Because of this understanding, it is difficult for Baptists to understand why we baptize children, because a child cannot "signify" that he has already been saved. But the Orthodox have a different meaning - in baptism, a person is given grace for liberation from sin, giving birth to eternal life. Baptists will not long argue that children are not strangers to God's grace and need to be saved, but then why not baptize them with grace baptism? For Orthodox baptism is a healing medicine. Would Baptists be willing to give their child medicine when he is sick, even though the child does not know what the disease is and how the medicine works? That is why the Orthodox are in favor of infant baptism.
Likewise with the sacrament. Just eating bread and drinking wine, remembering the sufferings of Christ - this is important, of course. Only then is it better to read the Gospel. But to partake of Christ Himself is necessary for salvation, because if we are not one with Christ, then how will we enter Paradise with Him? Simple bread and wine will not save anyone - only the Body and Blood of the Lord Himself. So communion is appropriate only if it is a saving sacrament, and not just a "rite of communion", in which Christ, in fact, is not present. Where the saving sacraments have disappeared, we see a dull service, pop music and very bad poetry. Has the Lord really come down to earth to give birth only to this?
- Prot. Nikolay Varzhansky. Anti-sectarian catechism. - M., 2001.
- Spiritual sword. – Krasnodar, 1995.
- Deacon Andrei Kuraev. Protestants about Orthodoxy. Legacy of Christ. 10th edition. - Klin, 2009.
- Holy Daniil Sysoev. Protestant's Walk on Orthodox church. - M., 2003.
- Deacon Sergius Kobzar. Why can't I remain a Baptist and a Protestant in general. - Slavyansk, 2002.
- Deacon John Whiteford. Only Scripture? - Nizhny Novgorod, 2000.
Characteristic Signs of the Sect.
To a greater or lesser extent, sects are characterized by the following features:
Hierarchy. To find out the hidden teaching, a person must be initiated to a certain level of hierarchy in a sect. The organization of the sect is strictly hierarchical. To get any result, for example, to justify the money paid or just the interest shown and the time spent, it is necessary to move to the next step. For example, in the Mun sect there is a "ladder" of many seminars - introductory, one-day, two-day, three-day, seven-day, twenty-one-day, as well as a complex system of membership and participation in the activities of the sect. In Ron Hubbard's Scientology sect, a person who has paid for and completed the initial course learns at the very end that the most important and interesting things will be revealed only in the next course, for which there is a separate fee, etc. The same is typical for the sect of followers of "living ethics": a gradual initiation into the secrets of the "teaching" as they participate more actively in the activities of the sect. The hierarchical structure allows you to keep under strict control and direct the actions of the members of the sect at all its levels and not allow a critical attitude either to the teachings of the sect or to its leaders.
The infallibility of the sect and its founder. The doctrine of the sect always claims that this is the highest truth, and the truth is “fresher” than the truths of all others, especially the traditional religions. These “truths” are obtained in a supernatural way, through “revelations,” visions, contacts with spirits (for example, Moon communicated with a spirit who called himself “Christ” and instructed to create a sect). Of course, everything that existed in the history of mankind before such a “happy insight,” is declared a mistake and a misunderstanding (in the sect of the same Moon, sectarians must hold the opinion that their homeland is Korea, which was blessed with his birth by the “reverend” Moon; for “witnesses Jehovah's love for the Fatherland is absurd, and the soldiers who died for the Motherland are mad; the Roerichians believe that the whole world, and Russia in particular, was in the darkness of superstition before it became possible to read the “agni yoga” composed by the Roerichs.”) The founders of sects - people whom investigators endow with divine qualities, many directly proclaim themselves “Christs”: Mun, S. Torop (“Vissarion”), M. Tsvigun (“Maria Devi”), T.F. Akbashev (considers not only himself but also his students to be “Jesus”), Shoko Asahara, and many others. Adherents of the Roerich movement call Helena Roerich nothing but the “mother of the world”. Communication, direct or “spiritual,” mental, with the founding leaders should bring incredible happiness to the sectarians, their orders should be carried out with enthusiasm. At the mental order from a photograph of Shri Mataji (a Sahaja Yoga sect), a young woman sadistically killed her one and a half year old daughter.
Consciousness programming. First of all, people with an unstable psyche, who do not have clear moral criteria (measures), spiritual and cultural knowledge, become members of sects. Such people, who seek but have not found solid foundations in spiritual life, are, as a rule, easily suggestible, that is, they are ready to give up their freedom and accept the guidelines of their teachers. At the same time, a person receives an illusory meaning of life, but his thinking can be built only according to primitive schemes. As a result, a person becomes completely dependent on sectarian teachings, participation in meetings, instructions from teachers and leaders of the sect. Experts compare sectarian addiction with drug addiction.
Life control. The ultimate goal of a sectarian organization is control over many, and ideally, over all spheres of human life. To achieve this goal, those who have joined sects are pulled out of habitual life, deprive a familiar social circle. Many sects use special settlements of sectarians in houses or apartments converted into “ashrams” or “monasteries,” often overcrowded. Adepts have an intensive daily routine, are limited in sleep and food, and carry out strenuous activities that leave no opportunity to critically comprehend the sectarian dogma and the personalities of the leaders. In some movements, psychotropic drugs and hypnosis are used to achieve control over adepts. In the end, sectarians sacrifice their time, health, property (most often apartments are either sold or given away to set up sect offices or “ashrams”) to the sect, and sometimes their lives. Sects are rarely content with their influence only on adherents, but usually seek to extend it to members of their families, close people, and acquaintances. Children of sectarians must be brought up in the spirit of sectarian teachings and grow up as devoted supporters. According to experts, it is from their number that detachments can be formed to carry out terrorist acts.
Political goals. Many sects, such as Moon's Unification Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Ron Hubbard's Scientology, and others, are large industrial and financial "empires" seeking to dominate the entire world. For example, the “Varnashrama Manifesto,” one of the documents of the “International Society for Krishna Consciousness,” writes about the coming society of “victorious Krishnaism” as a caste society, divided into superhumans - Hare Krishnas and Shudra slaves, who are destined for hard and hopeless work, and the omnipotent elite will decide, for example, to which class a newborn baby will belong. "Jehovah's Witnesses" are talking about the need to build a "new world order" headed by a "single government" consisting only of members of this sect. Korean Moon, the founder of the Unification Church sect, directly says that he should be accepted by all the governments of the world as their master.
Sects invariably lead war against Orthodox Church because the spiritual traditions of the Church are the most effective denunciation of the falsity of those ideas with which the sects want to subjugate society. In a society in which many sects operate, culture dies and a spiritual disease arises - an inability to distinguish between good and evil, truth from lies. Such a society becomes unable to solve its problems and turns into a passive object of application of someone else's will. Historical experience shows that societies affected by such ailments died, left the stage of history (for example, the Roman Empire). We should learn a lesson from history and turn to traditional spiritual values.
For the army, such treatment has already begun. An agreement has been signed between the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and the Moscow Patriarchate, military churches are being built in military units, priests are visiting soldiers performing combat missions in “hot spots.”
But there are also attempts to influence the various structures of the Ministry of Defense by many sects. Let's note the most active of them. These are “unification church” (Moon movement), “Mother of God center,” “covenant church,” Christian mission, “family” (“children of God”), “Jehovah's Witnesses,” “Church of Scientology” (L. Ron Hubard), some Eastern cults.
This handbook is an attempt to systematize data on religions and religious denominations in Russia.
Calvinism.
(Reformed, Huguenot, Presbyterian, Puritan)
The movement to cleanse the church was not limited to Germany. In Switzerland, the Reformation movement was led by the Frenchman Calvin, who, in matters of doctrine, went much further than Luther. Calvinism is the extreme trend in the reform movement of the 17th century. Trying to answer the question: “Why, with the universal love of God for people, some receive from Him the gift of faith, while others do not?” Calvin introduced the concept of unconditional predestination into his doctrine. Unconditional predestination is the eternal election by God of some people to salvation, and others to perdition, regardless of their will and without any relation to their freedom. Obviously, this provision was introduced under the influence of Judaism.
From Switzerland, Calvin's teachings spread to southwestern Germany and Holland under the name of Reformation, to France under the name of Huguenotism, and to Scotland, England and North America under the name of Presbyterianism.
In 1592 Presbyterianism was recognized by the Scottish Parliament as the state religion. The Presbyterians, also known as "puritans," demanded more decisive church reforms from the king and parliament: the abolition of church symbols, the cross, and the sign of the cross.
The basis of the structure of the church, according to the teachings of Calvin and the Presbyterians, is a community headed by a presbyter, who is elected by the members of the society; communities unite in regional and state unions. Ritual life is reduced to listening to prayers composed by the presbyter, his sermons, singing psalms. Marriages are blessed at home, a prayer is read over the dead at home. Liturgies and all Catholic holidays have been canceled except Sundays.
Anglicanism.
The Protestant movement also penetrated England. The immediate reason for the beginning of the reformation in England was the quarrel between Pope Clement VII and English king Henry VIII, who, under this pretext, got rid of the centuries-old influence of the Vatican on the politics of England. The English Parliament in 1533 passed a law on the independence of England in church affairs from the pope and approved the supreme rights in the church of England for the king. Henry VIII issued on behalf of Parliament a statement of faith in 10 parts, in which the influence of Lutheranism is noticeable. Under King Edward the sixth (1547-1553), these 10 points were revised, and in 1551, 42 members of the Anglican Confession were published, which is a mixture of Latinism (Catholicism), Lutheranism and Calvinism. This was the beginning of the English Episcopal Church. Under Queen Elizabeth I, these members of the faith were also revised and new 39 members were approved, which, according to the Anglican theologian Puller, were “rather symbols of peace and pious harmony than members of the faith.” The Anglican Church has an episcopal structure.
In the field of dogma and ritual within the church, there are three currents: “ high church,” trying to defend everything that Anglicanism has preserved from the apostolic teaching; “low,” consisting of representatives of the extreme currents of Protestantism and “broad,” whose members are indifferent to dogmatic disputes.
The Anglican Communion is made up of 25 autonomous churches and 6 church organizations, among them: the Church of England, the Episcopal Church in Scotland, as well as a number of Churches in the USA, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Canada, Australia and other countries that were part of the British Empire in the past.
The Anglican Church in Moscow was registered by the Department of Justice of the city of Moscow in 1993.
On the Question of the Women's Priesthood.
The possibility of raising the question of the ordination of women stems from the Protestant attitude towards the priesthood, from a misunderstanding of it. mysterious essence. Priesthood for Protestants is not a dignity, but a position. Therefore, they believe that the only obstacle to the ordination of women in ancient times was only the socio-cultural tradition of those times. And to us modern people, it remains only to restore justice and equalize the rights of women and men. In reality, there is nothing humiliating for a woman in the fact that, by the will of God, she was given a different destiny in earthly life than a man. We all Christians, without distinction of gender, are the chosen people, the “royal priesthood.” The Church is the body of Christ - a single body in which each member has a special role to play. The head of this divine-human organism is Christ. It is He who fully possesses the priesthood: He is the high priest, and He is the Sacrifice. The priestly hierarchy was established by the Lord Himself, Who, having elected the apostles (among whom there was not a single woman), gave them the power to perform the sacraments, and this power passed from the apostles to their successors - the bishops, and from the bishops to the presbyters. More precisely, it is not the priest, but the Lord through the priest who performs the sacraments. The priesthood exists to present Christ Himself in the present. But it is obvious that in this sense only a man, and not a woman, can be the image of Christ. And it is impossible to break the order determined by God for the sake of any human institutions. The inspired apostle Paul says: “Let your wives be silent in the churches; for they are not allowed to speak, but to be in subjection.” (1 Cor. 14:34). “Let the woman study in silence with all humility; but I do not allow a woman to teach...” (1 Tim. 2:11-12). To each reasonable person it is clear that the will of God cannot be the subject of cultural and socio-political discussions. It must be said that the Protestants do not have unanimity on this issue, and this weakens the denominations that have recognized the female priesthood. The ordination of women is opposed by the Baptists in our country, the conservative part of the Lutherans. AT Anglican Church this caused a split. Every year many Anglicans convert to Catholicism.
Baptists
A sect that emerged from among the English Puritans. The first Baptist community was established in 1633, and in 1639 it was already transferred to North America, where Rhode Island became its center. At first, the influence of the sect was insignificant. Only at the end of the 18th century, after the creation of the “Preacher's Union,” which declared its goal not to spread Baptism as a new doctrine, but allegedly only to preach Christianity among American Negroes, free from dogmas, rituals and obligatory symbolic signs, did the Baptist movement meet with sympathy and material support of many wealthy Americans.
This sect is divided into many interpretations. Its division began in the 17th century, when the Baptists were divided into "private" ones, who accepted Calvin's doctrine of unconditional predestination, and "general" or "free will Baptists," recognizing the universality of God's saving grace. “7th Day Baptists,” those who celebrate Saturday instead of Sunday; "Christian Baptists," those who reject the dogma of the Holy Trinity, the doctrine of hell and the devil and Christian holidays, “Tunker Baptists,” “Six Principle Baptists,” “Evangelical Christians,” “Stundists,” “Evangelicals”- all these are the names of different currents of the same sect. Some of these groups have now ceased to exist, having merged with other currents of Baptism or disappeared altogether.
All areas of Baptism are united by the denial of the possibility and reality of infant baptism. Until recently, Baptists, like the Anabaptists and Mennonites before them, categorically rejected oaths, military service, and courts.
Baptism entered Russia in the 19th century. Modern Russian Baptism was historically formed as a result of the merger of four religious groups of the Baptist persuasion, similar in doctrine, but earlier penetrating the territory of Russia and existing separately: Baptists, Evangelical Christians, some Pentecostals and fraternal Mennonites.
Active missionary work to spread Baptism in Russia began in 1859, when Unger, a German preacher of Mennonite ideas among Russian peasants working in the German colonies in southern Ukraine, established contact with the leaders of German Baptists, who ensured an influx to Russia a large number missionaries. Since then, the conversion to the Baptist faith of the Russian-speaking Orthodox population in the south of the country began. Acting at first secretly, but very actively, having direct contact with the peasants and assuring them of the "delusions" of Orthodoxy and the "truth" of Baptism, the missionaries managed to convert not only individual people, but in some villages a significant part of their population to Baptism. In a little over twenty years, Baptism from the south of Ukraine penetrated into the Caucasus, Oryol, Kaluga, some neighboring provinces and Moscow. At the same time, Baptism penetrated into Siberia and the Far East, which, due to their distance from the center, were convenient for its activities. Along with the growth of the zone of geographical distribution, the nature of the behavior of the Baptists began to change. There have been instances of Baptists mocking Orthodox shrines and sacraments, their interference in the performance of various Orthodox rites, which led to clashes with the Orthodox population and attracted the attention of the authorities. In 1894, by the Cabinet of Ministers, Baptism was declared a particularly harmful sect in church and public relations, and the followers of the sect were forbidden to organize public meetings. Their position, like that of all Russian sectarians, changed with the advent of the so-called law on religious tolerance of 1905 and the decree on the registration of Old Believer and sectarian communities of 1906. Since that time, sectarian organizations in general and Baptists in particular began to openly hold their meetings, organize educational and Bible circles, often luring the Orthodox population into them by deceit. During the First World War, an attempt was made to limit the activities of the sect, but after the end of the war, a new surge in Baptist activity began. But Baptism began to spread most rapidly after 1917.
Simultaneously with the spread of Baptism, communities of evangelical Christians began to emerge among ordinary and secular people. Since the time of Catherine II, the Russian intelligentsia, under the influence of French freethinkers, began to move away from Orthodox Faith. This subsequently led to the predominance in secular circles of people who grew up in a spirit of disbelief or a formal attitude to faith, Westernism and disregard for those spiritual foundations on which Russian society has been based for many centuries. At that time, the sermons of a certain Lord Redstock, a popularizer of the teachings of evangelical Christians, which he read in French, became popular among high society. Soon he had followers, including very wealthy citizens. Asylums, care homes, children's schools and other charitable institutions began to appear, with the help of which the new teaching and intolerant attitude towards Orthodoxy began to spread among common people. In 1884, such actions came to the attention of the authorities, who, realizing the danger of the spread of religious errors and heresies for national security have made several attempts to limit them. Also in 1884, the first unsuccessful attempt to merge Evangelical Christians with Baptists took place. Similar attempts were subsequently made repeatedly, but due to the fact that the center of Baptism was in Moscow, and the center of evangelical Christians in St. Petersburg, they could not be crowned with success for a long time. After 1917, like the Baptists, Evangelical Christians experienced organizational growth, the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians (ALL) was formed.
In the first years of Soviet power, these two organizations were in hostile relations. This continued until the Second World War, during which there were tendencies towards rapprochement between the Evangelicals and the Baptists. In 1944, a uniting congress of ALL and the Union of Baptists was held, at which a decision was made to create the Union of Evangelical Christians and Baptists (AUCECB), a year later, part of the Pentecostals joined them, and in 1963, fraternal Mennonites. The sect is strictly centralized, has its own All-Union Council in Moscow, a network of organizations in the republics and regions, is part of the World Baptist Union, whose center is in Washington (USA). The number of baptized members of the organization in Russia currently exceeds six hundred thousand people, and taking into account children, relatives and sympathizers with the ideas of the AUCECB, the organization exerts its influence on several million people.
7th Day Adventists.
Characteristic: an American-born sect that emerged from the Baptist milieu.
History of the sect: its founder is farmer William Miller, who belonged to one of the Baptist communities in the state of New York. The study of scripture led Miller to the idea that the end of the world and the millennium kingdom of Christ would soon come. Reading the eighth chapter of the book of the prophet Daniel, Miller accepted the 2300 days predicted by the prophet in years and in a simple way. arithmetic operations received the year of the coming of Christ - 1843. In 1831, he delivered an ardent sermon on the subject. This sermon found a response even in Europe. But when the year 1843 approached, Miller made a slight correction and postponed the coming of Christ to 1844, moreover, he accurately indicated the day and month, as well as the mountain in the state of New York, on which Christ should directly descend. On the said day, Miller's followers, dressed in white robes, encamped at the "Mountain of Judgment." After a long wait, the number of the "prophet's" supporters dropped sharply, but many remained faithful to him. Their tension and anticipation of the imminent second coming was taken advantage of by non-Christian elements who seized control of the movement. In 1844, Georg Sperr published six of his sermons, in which he denied the immortality of the soul and interpreted eternal torment as the complete annihilation of sinners. Then it was decided to celebrate the Old Testament Sabbath instead of the Christian celebration of the resurrection. In 1945, Miller and his followers were expelled from the Baptist Union and formed the Adventist organization. The failure with 1844 was later explained by the fact that Christ allegedly came after all, but not to earth, but to the heavenly sanctuary and began to create a “judgment of investigation,” determining the further fate of dead and living people. For this judgment, it took from 70 to 100 years, therefore, the new coming was postponed to 1932-33, coinciding in determining the period with the Jewish rabbis, who were waiting for the arrival of their “Messiah” precisely by these years. The last prediction was in 1995, which also coincided with the new predictions of the rabbis.
Doctrine: having grouped and rethought in their own way some places of the Holy Scriptures, Adventists believe that the doctrine of the second coming of Christ is the center of the teaching of the New Testament. They created their own concept of the second coming of Christ, during which only the righteous (the first resurrection) will supposedly be resurrected at first, who will stay with the Lord in heaven for 1000 years. At this time, there will be no people on earth, every human creation will be destroyed and disappear. Those of the sinners who will live during the Second Coming, for this thousand years will be imprisoned in a ditch until the Last Judgment, Satan will be chained and the place of his imprisonment will be the destroyed earth. After 1000 years, Christ will come to earth for the third time, then the wicked will rise (the second resurrection) and Satan will be released for a short time to deceive the nations and gather them for the last battle against Christ, but the fire of heaven will incinerate them: Satan and the wicked will be destroyed forever This is the second death for them. The land cleansed by fire will be renewed, and the righteous will inhabit it. There will be a new capital - New Jerusalem, people will build houses, plant vineyards and live a happy life, living in eternal bliss.
In addition, the influence of Judaism is clearly traced in the views of Adventists. In particular, the doctrine of the millennium kingdom of the Messiah is taken from the books of the rabbis, and the doctrine of the three comings is designed to reconcile the Jewish expectation of the imminent coming of the Messiah, who will create a world state with a prosperous population, with the New Testament doctrine of the coming Second Coming of Christ in Glory. The attempt to combine Christianity with Judaism is not new: it has its origins in the Gnostic sects of the first century of the Christian era.
Subsequently, the Adventist understanding of the Holy Scriptures formed the basis of the teachings of the sect of Jehovah's Witnesses, whose founder C. Russell was a disillusioned Adventist.
An assessment of the Protestant doctrine underlying most sects.
In their struggle against the errors of the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestants failed to return to the purity of the apostolic faith. On the question of the Church, priesthood and sacraments, as on many other issues, Protestants fell into extremes opposite to Roman Catholicism.
The Universality of the Priesthood. Rightly denying to the Bishop of Rome the importance of the infallible vicar of Christ and the direct head of all Christians, many Protestants simply rejected the hierarchy and proclaimed the doctrine of the universal priesthood. Incorrectly interpreting certain passages of Holy Scripture, they began to assert that all Christians are equal before God, that all enjoy the same right to address Him directly, personally, without any hierarchical mediation. The Church is an invisible community of believing hearts, enlightened by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The Church is holy, infallible, because it is governed by the Spirit of grace, which cleanses her of filth and invisibly cuts off unworthy members. Ap. Peter writes to Christians: “You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9). Ap. John says that Christ “has made us kings and priests to his God and Father” (Rev. 1:6). But here it is said about the priesthood not in the hierarchical sense, but in the fact that Christians, as reborn and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, should be among others - unbelieving people, as if a special sacred property of God. That hierarchy is a Divine institution is a truth too clearly confirmed by numerous passages of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition for it to be disputed, and the Protestants themselves later introduced something like a hierarchy. The rejection of the hierarchy by the first Protestants is explained, in addition to their hatred of the Catholic clergy, also by the fact that not a single bishop went over to the side of Luther, and therefore the Protestants could not have a legally ordained priesthood.
In this regard, it should be noted that Protestants cannot have a legal priesthood, since their apostolic succession ceased with the beginning of the Reformation.
The denial of hierarchy entailed other denials, including the denial of all the sacraments, with the exception of baptism. For some Protestant confessions, the Eucharist is only a rite established in remembrance of the Last Supper and the Passion of the Lord. But others, believing that the Eucharistic bread and wine always remain only bread and wine, argue that communicants, by virtue of their faith, nevertheless partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord.
The doctrine of justification by faith. In contrast to the exaggerated importance in Catholicism of a person's personal merit before God, the followers of Luther teach that good works do not amount to necessary condition for the salvation of a person, that they can even be harmful, as they develop conceit, pharisaic pride. The grace of God, acting on a person, inspires him with faith in Jesus Christ, and this faith, which puts a person in direct relation to the Redeemer, and delivers salvation to a person, makes him a righteous man.
In proof of their doctrine of justification by faith alone, the Lutherans refer to the words of St. Paul: “We acknowledge that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” (Rom. 3:28), and further: “A man is not justified by the works of the law, but only by faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal. 2:16). But in these and similar expressions, St. Paul does not in the least deny the importance of good works for salvation, but only rejects the wrong view of the Jews, who in their proud self-confidence hoped to achieve salvation by exact, formal fulfillment of the external precepts of the Law, in addition to heartfelt faith in Jesus Christ. This faith, according to the Apostle Paul, must be alive, active, that is, united with good deeds. She must " act love” (Gal. 5: 6); “ if I he says, I have all faith, so that I can move mountains, but I do not have love, then I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2). The Savior Himself says: Not everyone who says to me: Lord! God! enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). But the idea of the need for good works for salvation is especially clear in the epistle of St. James, which the Protestants dislike so much that they reject even its authenticity: “ What good is it, my brethren, if someone says that he has faith, but does not have works? can this faith save him? ... as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead” (James 2: 14, 26).
The doctrine of predestination and veneration of saints. Luther and his followers did not dare to draw the extreme conclusions that logically flowed from their false doctrine of the salvation of man. More consistent were Calvin and Zwingli and their Reform followers. If good deeds are of no importance in the matter of salvation, if a person has lost all ability to do good through sin, and even if faith, the only condition for salvation, is God’s gift, then the question naturally arises why not all people are saved, why some receive grace. while others believe and perish? There can be only one answer to this question; this is what the reformers give: God predestined from eternity some to salvation, others to perdition, and this predestination does not in the least depend on the personal freedom and life of a person.
The fallacy of the reformist doctrine is obvious. It perverts the truly Christian concept of God's justice and mercy, of the dignity and purpose of man as a free and rational being. God does not appear here as a loving, merciful Father, “ who wants all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth“(1 Tim. 2:4), but like a cruel, unjust despot, saving some without any merit, condemning others without guilt.
The Orthodox Church also recognizes predestination, but does not consider it unconditional, that is, independent of the free will of people and based on the causeless decision of the Divine will. By Orthodox teaching God, as omniscient, knows, foresees the moral state of people and, on the basis of this foresight, predestinates, predetermines a certain fate for them. But He does not predestinate a certain moral state for anyone, does not predestinate either a virtuous or a sinful life, and does not in the least constrain our freedom. Therefore, app. Paul, to whom the Reformers refer, puts the doctrine of predestination in close connection with the doctrine of God's foreknowledge. In Romans he elaborates on this idea and, incidentally, speaks of predestination: Those whom God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son... And whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29-30). Thus, God predestines to glory not according to His causeless arbitrariness, as the reformers think, but according to the foreseeing of man's merits, accomplished by his free will.
Protestants do not recognize the veneration of saints, since, in their opinion, it humiliates the dignity of the Savior as “the only Intercessor of God and men,” contradicts those passages of Holy Scripture that say that only God should be worshipped. Protestants consider the veneration of saints useless, since the saints cannot hear our prayers.
In the Orthodox teaching on the veneration of the saints, there is no belittling of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord, since we ask the saints not for what is not in their power - the forgiveness of sins, the granting of grace and a future blessed life - but we pray to the saints, as members of the Church, redeemed with the pure blood of Jesus Christ and closer to God than we are, so that they intercede for us before the only Intercessor, the Lord Jesus Christ.
In the passages of Holy Scripture cited by the Protestants (Deut. 6:13; 1 Tim. 1:17), it is said about the rendering of divine honor to God alone; but we do not give such honor to the saints. We honor the grace of God that dwells in them, we honor God, in the words of the psalmist, “wonderful in His saints.”
As for the hearing of our prayers by the saints, for this there is no need to possess omniscience, which, indeed, is characteristic only of God. It is enough to have that gift of insight, which the Lord honored many of His saints while still on earth, and which they possess in the highest degree in heaven.
Protestants also object to the veneration of relics, saying that by venerating them, we Orthodox honor dead matter. But in the relics we honor not the substance itself, but the living and life-giving power of the Holy Spirit, which makes them not only incorruptible, but also healing. It is known from the Holy Scriptures that from touching the bones of the prophet Elisha, the dead was resurrected (2 Kings 13:21); a bleeding woman received healing from touching the edge of the Savior's garment (Matt. 9: 20-22); the sick and possessed were healed by laying on them scarves and apprehensions. Paul (Acts 19:12). The same Divine power that was inherent in the bones of the prophet Elisha, the robe of the Savior, the handkerchiefs of St. Paul, grants both the bodies of the saints incorruption and miraculous power to strengthen the faith of Christians.
Look at afterlife . The Orthodox confession of faith ends with a living expectation of the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. Who does not believe in future life whoever does not believe in the future final righteous judgment of God, who does not believe in the retribution of the righteous and the punishment of the evil, is not Orthodox, not a Christian.
While we Orthodox believe in the effective power of prayer for the dead, sectarians reject prayers for the dead on the grounds that there is no direct commandment in Holy Scripture to pray for the dead and because the fate of a person after the grave depends, as it were, exclusively from what he himself was personally during earthly life and, finally, because believers have one Intercessor, the Savior Jesus Christ Himself.
But if the Word of God does not really speak directly about prayer for the dead, then our duty towards them follows of itself from the obligation of Christians to maintain communion of love among themselves, which in relation to the dead is expressed in prayers for them. Ap. James urges us to pray for one another (James 5:16) and adds that "the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much"; app. Paul exhorts to pray for all people (1 Tim. 2:1); St. John the Evangelist - especially for sinners (1 John 5:16). It cannot be assumed that these admonitions apply only to the living, since the dead are the same members of the Church of Christ as we are, and the death of a person, from a Christian point of view, should not break communion between him and the survivors. “ God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for with Him all are alive,” says the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 20:38). “ Whether we live or die, always the Lord's,” teaches ap. Paul (Rom. 14:8).
As for the references of the Protestants to the places of Holy Scripture, where it is a question of recompense to each according to his deeds (Ps. 6: 6; Gal. 6: 7; 2 Cor. 5: 10, etc.), then in these places it is said either about that the dead themselves cannot change their fate, or about the state of the dead after Doomsday but the usefulness of prayers for the dead is not denied.
Finally, it is absolutely true that our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, is “the only Advocate of God and man.” This is what the Orthodox Church teaches, this is what is said repeatedly in Holy Scripture, especially often in the epistles of St. Paul. But, after all, we Orthodox, in our prayers for the dead, turn to Him, our Savior, as a child of His Church.
commemoration of the dead and church prayers about them - the original, apostolic tradition of the Church, sacredly preserved by it in all ages. Back in the 5th century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a participant in the Second Ecumenical Council, explaining the structure of divine services and sacraments to those who entered the Church in his time, he wrote about the church commemoration of the dead at the liturgy: “It will be of great benefit to the souls for whom prayer is offered at a time when the Holy One is present and the terrible sacrifice” (“Mystery teaching 5, ” Ch. 9). The particles taken out of the prosphora in commemoration of the living and the dead are placed on the diskos at the foot of the Lamb, where they remain until the moment they sink into the bowl with the words: “Wash, O Lord, the sins of those who were commemorated here by Thy precious Blood, by the prayers of Thy saints.”
Source of Faith. All erroneous denials of Protestantism are based on the no less erroneous denial of Holy Tradition by Protestants. They strive to rely only on the Holy Scriptures, not realizing to what extent both make up one inseparable whole. The action of the Holy Spirit in the Church is arbitrarily limited by the Protestants to the apostolic time, and therefore they consider all church institutions that finally came to light after the Apostles to be purely human. At the same time, they forget that the very composition of the books included in the Holy Scriptures was determined significantly after the death of the Apostles. Protestants forget, or prefer not to remember, that the oral preaching of Christianity (oral Tradition) preceded the writing sacred books New Testament.
Or, recognizing Holy Tradition until the time of the final compilation of the books of the New Testament in the 2nd century, Protestants hardly agree that the Holy Spirit in subsequent centuries, dwelling in the Church as in the Body of Christ, did not cease to guard and enliven the true meaning of Holy Scripture .
According to Orthodox teaching, Holy Scripture is the cornerstone of Holy Tradition and contains the fullness of God's revelation. But the Holy Spirit, Who inspired the Apostles and Evangelists in their oral and written gospel, instructs the Holy Church even now, contributing to the understanding and assimilation of Christ's truth.
ecumenism.
The ecumenical movement originated in the Protestant world. It takes as its guiding principle precisely the Protestant understanding of the Church. Protestants believe that there is no single truth and a single Church, but each of the numerous Christian denominations has a particle of truth, thanks to which these relative truths can, through dialogue, be brought to a single truth and a single Church. One of the ways to achieve this unity, in the understanding of the ideologists of the ecumenical movement, is to hold joint prayers and services in order to eventually achieve communion from a single cup (intercommunion).
Orthodoxy cannot accept such an ecclesiology in any way, for it believes and testifies that it does not need to collect particles of truth, for it is the Orthodox Church that is the guardian of completeness Truth given to Her on the day of Holy Pentecost.
The Orthodox Church, however, does not forbid praying for those who are out of communion with Her. Through the prayers of St. rights. John of Kronstadt and Blessed Archbishop John (Maximovich) were healed by both Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Muslims, and even pagans. But, acting according to their faith and request, these and our other righteous at the same time taught them that the saving Truth is only in Orthodoxy.
For the Orthodox, joint prayer and communion at the Liturgy are an expression of the already existing unity within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. St. Irenaeus of Lyon (2nd century) put it succinctly: “Our faith is in harmony with the Eucharist and the Eucharist confirms our faith.” The Holy Fathers of the Church teach that members of the Church build the Church - the Body of Christ - by the fact that in the Eucharist they partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. Outside of the Eucharist and Communion there is no Church. Joint communion would be a recognition that all who partake belong to the One Apostolic Church, while the reality of Christian history and our time, unfortunately, point to a deep doctrinal and ecclesiological division Christendom.
Representatives of the modern ecumenical movement not only do not promote unity, but exacerbate the division of the Christian world. They call to go not the narrow path of salvation in the confession of the one truth, but the broad path of unity with those who profess various errors, about which St. app. Peter said that “through them the way of truth will be reproached” (2 Pet. 2:2-2).
Until recently, the largely Protestant World Council of Churches called for the unity of Christians throughout the world. Now this organization calls for unity with the pagans. In this sense, the World Council of Churches is increasingly approaching the positions of religious syncretism. This position leads to the erasure of differences between religious confessions in order to create a single universal world religion that would contain something from each religion. Universal world religion also implies a universal world state with a single economic order and a single world nation - a mixture of all existing nations, with a single leader. When this happens, the ground will actually be prepared for the reign of the Antichrist.
Let us recall the infamous ecumenical prayer meeting organized a few years ago by the Pope in Assisi, in which non-Christians participated. To what deity did the religious figures gathered at that time pray? At this meeting, the Pope told non-Christians that “they believe in the true God.” True God- The Lord Jesus Christ, worshiped in the Triune Trinity. Do non-Christians believe in the Holy Trinity? Can Christians pray to an unspecified deity? According to Orthodox teaching, such a prayer is heresy. In the words of the outstanding Orthodox theologian, Archimandrite Justin Popovich, “all-heresy.”
Orthodox members of the ecumenical movement claim that by their formal membership in the World Council of Churches they testify to the truth that lives in the Orthodox Church. But the open violation of the canonical rules testifies not to the confession of the Truth, but to the trampling of the Holy Tradition of the Church.
How would the pillars of Orthodoxy, the Church Fathers Sts. Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Mark of Ephesus and others? Let us turn to hoary antiquity, to the life of St. Maximus the Confessor. In it he showed how Orthodox Christian to behave in the face of apostasy, a general deviation from the Truth of Christ.
Why don't you enter into communion with the Throne of Constantinople? - the patrician Troilus and Sergius Euphrates, the head of the royal meal, asked St. Maximus the Confessor.
No, the saint replied.
Why? they asked.
Because, - answered the saint, - that the primates of this Church rejected the decrees of the four councils... many times they excommunicated themselves from the Church and exposed themselves in unreasonable thinking.
So, you alone will be saved, - they objected to him, - and all the others will perish?
The saint replied:
When all people in Babylon worshiped the golden idol, the three holy youths did not condemn anyone to death. They did not care about what others did, but only about themselves, so as not to fall away from true piety. In the same way, Daniel, thrown into the pit, did not condemn any of those who, fulfilling the law of Darius, did not want to pray to God, but had in mind their duty, and wished it was better to die than to sin and be executed before their conscience for the transgression of the Law of God. . And God forbid me to condemn anyone, or to say that I alone will be saved. However, I will agree to die rather than, having deviated from the right faith in any way, to endure the pangs of conscience.
But what will you do, the messengers told him, when the Romans unite with the Byzantines? Yesterday, after all, two Apocrysaries came from Rome, and tomorrow, on Sunday, they will commune with the Patriarch of the Most Pure Mysteries.
The monk replied: - If the whole universe begins to commune with the patriarch, I will not commune with him. For I know from the writings of the holy apostle Paul that the Holy Spirit anathematizes even angels if they began to preach differently, introducing something new.
Page generated in 0.04 seconds!
BAPTISTS: a pernicious sect or an established church?
AT recent times in the Tver press, a number of publications were observed, the authors of which expressed their biased opinion about the Baptists. This prompted me to prepare this article, which attempts to objectively shed light on this issue.
Who are they?
Here is what the Great Soviet Encyclopedia says about Baptist Christians: "Baptists (from the Greek. baptizo - I dip, I baptize by immersion in water). Adherents of one of the varieties of Protestantism. According to the Baptist creed, salvation of a person is possible only through personal faith in Christ, and not through the mediation of the Church; the only source of faith is Holy Scripture."
Formally, Baptism arose during the Reformation at the beginning of the 17th century. However, to say that Baptism as a doctrine originates at this time is fundamentally wrong. Baptist Christians did not invent anything new, but only returned to the principles of the Christian faith, clearly stated in the Holy Scriptures. In dogma and preaching the main place is occupied by moral and instructive problems. The main attention at divine services is given to the sermon, which is delivered not only by presbyters, but also by preachers from among ordinary believers. Great importance in worship is given to singing: choral, general, solo. important integral part liturgical assembly are general and individual prayers. The main acts of the sacrament are water baptism by faith and the breaking of bread (communion). Baptist baptism is performed by immersing the person being baptized in water. This act is given a spiritual meaning: by accepting baptism, a believing person "dies with Christ", and, emerging from the waters of baptism, "is resurrected with Christ" for a new life. In addition, marriages, prayers for the blessing of children, and burials of the dead are carried out. All this is done free of charge.
Baptists in Russia
The beginning of the Evangelical-Baptist movement in Russia is considered to be 1867, when N. I. Voronin was baptized in the Kura River in Tiflis (Tbilisi), who later became one of the famous and active preachers of the Gospel. In the 1960s and 1970s, Baptism spread to Ukraine, the Caucasus, and the Volga region. In 1884, the Union of Russian Baptists was created. In 1874, the English Lord G. Redstock and retired Colonel Prince V. A. Pashkov began preaching the Gospel in St. Petersburg. Through their efforts, the ideas of Evangelical Christians spread among the St. Petersburg nobility. By 1912 there were 115,000 Baptists and 31,000 Evangelical Christians in Russia. By 1927, the number of Evangelical Christians and Baptists reached 500,000. However, in 1928, repressions began, which subsided only by the mid-1940s. In 1944, the Union of Evangelical Christian Baptists was formed.
Russian Union of Evangelical Christian Baptists today
The Russian Union of Evangelical Christian Baptists (ECB) today is the largest Protestant Christian association in Russia both in terms of the number of communities and followers, and in terms of distribution throughout the country. It is built on the principle of autonomy of local churches and coordination of the goals of joint ministry. Coordination is carried out by 45 regional ECB associations, headed by senior presbyters (bishops) and the pastoral councils existing with them, which include presbyters of all local churches in the region. The Union unites over 1100 local churches.
The ECB Union has a system of spiritual and educational institutions. Among them are the Moscow Theological Seminary, the Moscow Theological Institute, a number of full-time and correspondence Bible schools in many regional centers of Russia. Almost every local church has Sunday Schools for kids.
The ECB Union and many regional associations have their own publishing base, and also carry out work on the air (for example, the programs "On Circles" on the Radio-1 channel).
The spiritual, educational and charitable work of Evangelical Christian Baptists has been highly appreciated by the President of the Russian Federation. In March 2002, the senior presbyter for the Samara region Viktor Semenovich Ryaguzov was awarded the Order of Friendship of Peoples. Earlier, senior presbyters Romanenko N.A. were awarded government awards. and Abramov G.I.
The Church of Evangelical Christian Baptists in the city of Tver is preparing to celebrate its 120th anniversary. So the Baptists in Tver are not a product of the "epoch of perestroika" or the "expansion of Western preachers", but a historical reality. Evangelical Christian Baptists of Tver hold divine services in two prayer houses: on Griboedova street, 35/68 and on 1st Zheltikovskaya street, 14.
Relations between the Russian ECB Union and the Russian Orthodox Church
There were different periods in the relationship between Baptists and Orthodox. Since the appearance of Baptism in Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church, relying on the help of the state, has struggled with the Baptists. Some relief came after the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which proclaimed the principle of religious tolerance. In the 30s of the 20th century, ministers of Baptist churches were with Orthodox ministers in the same prison cells and camp barracks and together glorified God in prayers and hymns, to which there are still living witnesses.
Are Baptists heretics from the standpoint of Orthodox Christians? What do the official documents of the Russian Orthodox Church say about this? In the book "Orthodoxy and Ecumenism. Documents and Materials 1902-1997" (M: Izdat-vo MIPT, 1998) it is written: "The Anglicans and Protestants were the product of the Reformation; never in communion with the Orthodox Church they were condemned either by the Ecumenical or Local Councils... the Church conciliarly and officially did not declare them heretics. Officially and canonically, they are our brothers in Christ who err in the faith, brothers in unity in baptism and in their participation in the Body of Christ (i.e., the Church as the Body of Christ) as a result of baptism, the validity of which we recognize with them as a Sacrament" (p. 19- twenty).
Perhaps the most striking event that shed light on the current level of relations was the Jubilee International Interfaith Conference dedicated to the 2000th anniversary of Christianity, which took place on November 23-25, 1999 in Moscow. It was organized by the Christian Interfaith Consultative Committee (CICCC), whose co-chairs are: from the Russian Orthodox Church - Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad; from the Roman Catholics - Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz; from the Protestants - the chairman of the Russian Union of ECB Konovalchik P.B.
In his welcoming speech, Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus' said: "The current conference, organized by the KhMKK, serves as a vivid example of the fact that Christians are clearly aware of the need to contribute to the establishment of Christian values and guidelines in the public consciousness."
In his plenary report, Metropolitan Kirill noted several important aspects interfaith relations:
"Cooperation in peacemaking and in social service of representatives of various Christian denominations seems to me extremely important in this regard. We, the followers of Christ, should set a good example for our politicians."
"Despite the well-known historical difficulties in interfaith relations, in general, one can speak more about cooperation and peaceful coexistence than about enmity."
"Of course, I am far from representing the relationship of Christian denominations in pre-revolutionary times in pink tones. Of course, the state status of the Orthodox Church in Russia and the fact that the absolute majority of citizens belonged to Orthodoxy led to a certain marginalization of other Christian denominations."
“Entering the 21st century, all Christians are called to bear witness to this to the world, preparing, like John the Baptist, the “way of the Lord” in the hearts of people. that we and our children may live (Genesis 43:8)."
And here is what was written, in particular, in the final document of the Anniversary Conference:
"The anniversary should become an occasion for even more fruitful inter-Christian and inter-religious cooperation, help create a basis for their further development. Our Churches and church communities should set an example for society and the world in mutual understanding and cooperation."
"In order to successfully fulfill your duty to God and people, Christian Churches must themselves show society the experience of reconciled cooperation."
How are these practically implemented? good intentions? One of the most significant joint programs was the celebration of the 2000th anniversary of Christianity and the meeting of the third millennium. The secular authorities also took part in organizing the celebration of this anniversary, in particular, the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation was issued (No. 1468 of December 4, 1998). Along with the leaders of the Orthodox Church, representatives of other Christian denominations, including the chairman of the Russian Union of ECB P.B. Konovalchik, were included in the committee for preparations for the celebration of the anniversary.
The mistakes of the past are also corrected. One of the practical steps was a letter from the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate to P.B. Konovalchik, Chairman of the Russian ECB Union. (out. No. 3551 of 09/11/96), which expressed regret about the publication of the brochure "Baptists - the most malicious sect" and said that "the publishers, the courtyard of the monastery of St. Panteleimon were warned for unauthorized placement of a reference to the blessing of the Patriarch."
As for Tver, here the celebration turned out to be separate. First, the Tver Eparchy and the City Administration held joint events. And only in 2002, a group of Christian non-Orthodox churches (two Tver churches ECB and eight churches of other Christian denominations), although the organizing committee filed an appeal to the city Administration in 2001. In this joint work, both pastors and ordinary believers of these churches became noticeably closer and became friends.
During the screening of the movie "Jesus" in the press there were publications in which the Baptists were accused of pursuing "hidden" goals. Our goal, like that of all Christians, is one, and it is commanded by the Lord Himself: "Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." In fulfillment of this commandment, we not only participated in the screening of the film "Jesus", but also hold spiritual and educational talks with those who are interested in Holy Scripture. For example, in the Tver House of Officers (garrison) on Sundays from 16:00. We do not "lure" Orthodox Christians, since they go to church on Sundays and they have spiritual shepherds; but we want to serve those people who, in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, are "like sheep without a shepherd."
Yuri Zaika, deacon of the Church of Evangelical Christian Baptists in Tver
